The Scoop on Arizona

April 20th, Arizona passed a sweeping and controversial immigration bill authorizing police officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand proof of citizenship. The law has sparked a national uproar, with politicians, pundits and citizens weighing in. Because of all the anger mounted over the Arizona law, a police officer sued to challenge the law. The lawsuit from 15-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar was one of two filed Thursday, less than a week after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill that critics claim is unconstitutional and fear will lead to racial profiling. The law is receiving a lot of negativity, even the people who are or were suppose to enforce the law are against this law. Arizona’s immigration law has been an immediate hit with the Republican party, but some of the party’s top strategists and rising stars worry that the harsh crackdown may do long-term damage to the GOP in the eyes of America’s Hispanic population. The people put the Senate and House of Reps. into office and if the Republicans lose any more seats it would be trouble, since Democrats are already the majority in Congress.From Marco Rubio to Jeb Bush to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Republicans who represent heavily Hispanic states have been vocal in their criticism of the Arizona law, saying it overreaches. Even Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a conservative hero for his win last fall, has questioned the law. Many Republicans believe this law will not get them re- elected into important offices.“It’s like a virus that you get and you don’t feel like you’re unhealthy for the first few days, but after that you have a fever and you’re really sick,” says Matthew Dowd, former President George W. Bush’s chief strategist in 2004. “You can’t win a national election and you can’t win certain states without the Latino vote. And Republicans already had a problem.”

“I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,” top Bush strategist Karl Rove said during a stop on his book tour. “I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way.”

“It’s like you can’t win certain states without the Latino vote. And Republicans already had a problem.”

"The law was a virus that you get and you don’t feel like you’re unhealthy for the first few days, but after that you have a fever and you’re really sick," says Matthew Dowd, former President George W. Bush’s chief strategist in 2004. Senate Democrats unveiled their framework for immigration reform on Thursday April 20th. Some Democrats think they could benefit politically from addressing immigration reform but the party was primarily motivated to move on the issue in the wake of the controversy over Arizona's new immigration law. Senator Dick Durbin states, "Failure to act on immigration reform will mean that our broken system and ineffective laws will continue to weaken our national security and hurt our workers and fail short of the most basic standard of justice." This law will possibly change the Congress population severely due to the resent events of oil spill, mine explosions and severe immigration laws, it will hurt the Republicans and help the Democrats.

Sources

Hunt, Kassie. "Worries in Republican Arizona Law Could Hurt Party - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36617.html.

Condon, Stephanie. "Can Dems Do Immigration Reform This Year? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 01 May 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003857-503544.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsPCAnswer+%28PC+Answer%3A+CBSNews.com%29.

Congress vs. President

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and Congress is the only branch that can propose bills and pass them into laws. And lastly the president whose job is to enforce the nation's laws. The point of having three branchese of government is for one branch of government to check the other. I think all the branches of the government are important, but the problem is tht due to the media's power to control the people's minds, it also give more power to the president than it should be in a correct checks and balances system. Checks and balance is a system established in the Constitution that prevents any branch of government from becoming too powerful.

The war in Iraq was a bad choice for the United States of America. President Bush in 2000 declared war in Iraq without Congress's approval, which is directly defying the system of checks and balances. Which in the Constitution states in Article I, section 7, the Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. The declaration of war as written in the Constitution seems to create a war-making partnership with the two branches of government, to restrict the president's Article II power as Commander-in-Chief, and instead significantly grant that power to the Legislative Branch. But because of the influence of media on the American people Bush was able to convince the country that America needed to go to war now and did not have any time to waste, so because the people supported his cause he was able to send 20, 000 troops. However Congress does not have the power to order the president to remove troops from battle. Instead of asking Congress to declare war after he sent the troops he merely asked for their support, which Congress could not turn down because they knew it would be political suicide. I mean it would sound bad in the media if the story was, "Congress will not support the War on Terror, it would rather the United States be blown up than find the 'weapons of mass destruction'."

Sources

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/cartoons/2007/09/img/092007_executive.jpg

Opinion on The Freedom of Press

Media stereotypes are to be expected, especially in the entertainment, news and advertising industries. Stereotypes are quick easy ways that give audiences a quick, similar understanding of a person or group of people usually involving their ethnicity, social class, race, gender, sexual orientation or occupation. No one is safe from stereotypes even teenagers are suffering from it. Through movies and TV shows teens are perceived as people who only care about two things money and sex. While flipping through the channels one might notice all the programming shown is directing toward teens. Even the news has stereotyped teens by making a public perception that teenage crime is on the rise or out of control.

The entertainment world has extremely attacked the youth in many ways; the media shows that all teens like drinking, taking drugs and having sex. Today by the end of high school, the average student will have spent 15,000 hours watching TV and only 11,000 hours in the classroom. The time spent watching TV will impact some teens into following what they see on the television. The media should not have the power to say whatever they want or to stereotype, but according to the first amendment they do and that is ashame. Negative stereotypes not only affect how adults see teenagers, they influence how teenagers see themselves. The feeling that the rest of the world doesn't respect or understand you does little to encourage a positive sense of feeling important. Media should back off for once and let teens be teens. Stereotypes are lies and one day the media will learn one way or another not to do it.

Sources

http://www.faithmouse.com/cartoon222large.jpg

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/special_initiatives/toolkit/stereotypes/index.cfm

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1224

Double Jeopardy

According to the Fifth Amendment a person can not be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Youssef Megahed, a 23-year-old college student and permanent legal U.S. resident, is in immigration custody, facing deportation to Egypt. In August of 2007, Megahed and another college student were stopped while on their way to South Carolina. Police found explosives in the trunk. Both men were arrested and charged with terrorist related activity. The driver, Ahmed Mohamed, pled guilty to providing support to terrorist after authorities found a YouTube video showing him building remote control bombs. Mohamed was sentenced to 15 years. Youssef Megahed, charged with two counts of terrorist activity went on trial in early 2009. In April 2009, a federal jury found Megahed not guilty, finding the explosives simular to fireworks. Three days later, immigration officials arrested Megahed outside of a Tampa Wal-Mart. Megahed's family and supporters believe the government's actions amount to double jeopardy, getting a second chance to try a case it lost the first time around.







"We're completely disappointed with this action by the government," said Adam Allen, Megahed's public defender. "My understanding is that they have arrested him to seek to deport him based solely on the same grounds for which he was acquitted." U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman James Judge said Megahed was arrested for "civil violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act," releasing few details in a prepared statement. Luckily the Florida immigration judge dismissed the deportation case against Youssef Megahed. The Constitution of the United States still holds value of decisions made in the United States.

Sources

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article990078.ece

http://standeyo.com/NEWS/08_Terror/08_Terror_pics/080327.jihad1.jpg

War on Terror

President Barack Obama on Tuesday December 8, 2009 said that he would be sending an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan by next summer. He also said that he plans to have all surviving American troops back home by July 2011. Addressing cadets and officers at West Point, Obama said: "As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan." He states, "Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully, for what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility. What's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world." It is said that the new troops will cost the national treasury approximately 30 billion dollars.



Why is Obama still sending troops to are war that ended already? What are our American troops still doing in Afghanistan? President Obama states, "There is a more solemn duty as president than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way;" however, he does seem to be in any rush to remove our troops, but instead he sends more. He states "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action." The U.S. is still fighting the War on Terror even though the war officially ended in 2008. As the President of the United States Obama has the right to send troops to Afganistsan according to the Constitution's Article II, Section 2 which makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, but that does not mean put our troops in harms way inorder to befriend a Middle East country.

Sources

Keefe, Mike. "Afghanistan." Mike Keefe Political Cartoons - Updated Daily at InToon.com. 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://www.intoon.com/#78751.

"BBC NEWS Americas US to Boost Troops in Afghanistan." BBC NEWS News Front Page. 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. .

Activating The First Amendment

When do rebels overstep their boundaries? Is it when a group of anti-abortion activist believe that they must end abortion by any means necessary, including bombs, guns, knives, arson and kidnapping. What many activist do not understand is that, if a woman arrives to the decision to have an abortion, there is not much that will change her mind. Therefore, the option of a legal abortion should be available to her as it eliminates the chance of an illegal means of discarding her unborn child. Backyard abortions can be extremely dangerous. The high risk of illegal abortions would not be a problem if legal abortions, carried out by professional doctors, were available. Anti-abortionist always refer to abortion as murder, which is not not correct because murder is the act of taking away a life, and abortion doesn't deal with a complete human life, but rather with a fetus. Therefore, no body's life is being taken away as life, since life begins at birth. It is unfair to condemn those who are in favor of abortion because nobody has the right to judge another's choice regarding the issue. For a person to enforce their personal views upon another on the topic and to either force them into agreeing with their viewpoint for or against abortion is an infringement of one's individual rights.

Consequently the first amendment allows a person to the freedom of speech, giving rebels the right to protest whatever they like. But the fact that anti-abortionist think they have the right to use any means necessary to get there point across, even if that means taking away an actual life is sad. Other than the logic behind the fact that they would take away a life to protect a life that is not even in existence is wrong and illegal, it also goes against what they are trying to protect, life. Just because America give its citizens does not mean a person should go around and take away others rights for their own selfish reasons. The Constitution protects factions, but it does not protect felons. For example, Tiller was shot through the eye at close range and killed on May 31, 2009, during worship services at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, where he was serving as an usher and handing out church bulletins. The gunman escaped after threatening to shoot two people who pursued him at first, and fled in a car. Three hours after the shooting, the anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder was arrested about 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City. On June 2, 2009, Roeder was charged with first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault in connection with the shooting, subsequently convicted in January 2010 on those charges, and sentenced to life without parole for 50 years on April 1st, 2010, the maximum sentence available in Kansas. According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation, since 1977 in the United States, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort. Property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.

Sources

"Anti-abortion Violence - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Main Page - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence.

"Anti-abortion Activists Hold Vigil in Hackensack «." Passaic – Bergen Jewish News. 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. http://passaicnews.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/anti-abortion-activists-hold-vigil-in-hackensack/.

Health Care Reform

Government's role in health care has been steadily growing since Medicare and Medicaid were established 45 years ago. Now Congress has presented a Health Care Bill to aid uninsured and self-employed people so they would be able to purchase insurance through state-based programs. This aid would be available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level. The bill would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for aid. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. President Obama is trying to fulfilling a promise he made in his presidential election campaign to provide health care for all American citizens. President Obama promised the American people, "the security and stability that's missing today." He states, "If you don't have insurance, you'll finally be able to afford insurance." Sadly President Obama can not pass a law without Congress's or the Justices' approval, neither can he propose a law to Congress. The bill has to go through the House of Representative as it states in Article I, section 7, that "all the bills for raising revenue must originate in the House in order to be passed into law." The House of Representatives proposed the law in the summer of 2009 has been through months of fierce debate in Washington. President Obama admits to the existence of disagreements, and he said there was "widespread agreement on the urgent need to reform a broken system" and finally hold health insurance companies accountable. The bill passed the House but was sent back by the Senate who disapproved of some slight glitches found in the bill. Finally, after more than a year Congress passed a health care reform bill on Sunday, March 21, 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/03/23/VI2010032301705.html
(The signing of the Health Care Bill)

The bill came to Obama on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. President Obama sat at a desk surrounded by congressional leaders and some of the people whose problems he highlighted in speeches. He used 22 pens to sign his signature. Obama was finally be able to make insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for millions of families and small business owners. Obama signed the bill, it was checked off by the justices and it is now a law. President Obama is loyal to the promises he makes.

Sources

Nolen, John. "Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. 21 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html.

"Obama Signs Health-care Bill - Washingtonpost.com." Washingtonpost.com - Nation, World, Technology and Washington Area News and Headlines. 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/03/23/VI2010032301705.html.

Who Actually Has The Right To Bear Arms?

Chicago's gun ban has been in place for 28 years, it states that no one in the city of Chicago is allowed to carry a hand gun or an automatic weapon. I do admit that gun control and lack of gun safety is becoming an ever-increasing problem within our nation, but I do not think that our right to bear arms should be taken away. As a result of the gun ban many people do not feel comfortable in their homes due to the fact that they feel unable to protect themselves. I understand Chicago does not want guns in the hands of felons; however, it is necessary that guns are not confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Owning a gun deters burglary because if you have a gun in the house most criminals will get scared and run. It is the fear factor that gives gun owners an advantage. I believe that there should be some type of gun control, but I also believe people should have the right to bear arms in their homes. The second amendment was set in place for individuals to protect themselves when they believe it is necessary or when the police is unable to provide their attention immediately. Some people will argue that in a modern society we no longer need guns to defend ourselves because there are no wild animals, hostile Indians, or ruthless cowboys, they believe that the police are provided for that purpose. However I argue that police officers are limited by number and there are more criminals than ever before, also the massive number of people living in one area means that the police can never protect everyone. Many people who support gun control believe banning guns would reduce gun related crimes because it would be harder for criminals to obtain a firearm. But the truth is that criminals will always hold onto their guns, and by banning guns that leaves their victims unprotected. A person's second amendment should not be taken away from them because of the amount of crime occurring in the neighborhood.

The case being brought to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Chicago handgun ban is called McDonald vs. Chicago. Otis McDonald, 76, is a resident of Chicago whose life is threatened in his own home; therefore, he decided to sue Chicago for it's ban on handguns. McDonald believes his right to bear arms in not being protected by the city and he does not feel protected in his home. He states how he was threatened at gunpoint in his Morgan Park neighborhood. He states, "In my home, this is the only time I worry." Also stating that, "There's more guns coming into this city than the police can take away from them. So if I've got a gun, and if others have guns in their homes to protect themselves, then that's one thing that police would have to worry about less." Three times, he says, his house had been broken into; once he called police to report gunfire, only to be confronted by a man who told him he'd heard about that call and threatened to kill him. He and four other plaintiffs presented their case to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 2, 2010. McDonald is only looking to make his neighborhood safe and his ability to sleep well at night. I believe he and every other person in the U.S. should have the right to protect himself as it is written in the United States Constitution. No one should feel unsafe in their home, they should be able to protect themselves.

Sources

Vogue, Ariane De. "Supreme Court Hears Chicago Gun-Ban Case - ABC News." ABCNews.com - Breaking News, Politics, Online News, World News, Feature Stories, Celebrity Interviews and More - ABC News. 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-hears-chicago-gun-ban-case/story?id=9780703.



Savage, David. "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Chicago Gun Law." Chicago Breaking News. 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html.